What is Direct Action?
“We who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface hidden tension that is already alive”
- Martin Luther King Jr.
Direct Action has become synonymous with political activism, but what does it mean? Historically, Direct Action is the use of independent individual or collective power to challenge the status quo and achieve justice around a systemic issue that can’t (or won’t) be resolved through “official” top-down governance. This method for change involves publicly demanding—and often presenting—commonly agreed-upon solutions to a complaint that becomes impossible to ignore. By appealing to peoples’ morality and revealing pervasive failures, a significant proportion of public opinion can be swayed in favour of proposed reforms.
A key aspect of direct action which distinguishes it from supposedly legitimate channels of influence is the link to civil disobedience, a term popularised in writing by Henry David Thoreau when in 1848 he refused to pay taxes that funded America’s war with Mexico. Civil disobedience is performing illegal acts in the name of righting wrongs. The idea is that the system dictating said illegalities is itself wrong for preserving injustices, and therefore needs contesting if a universally free and fair society is to prevail.
The purpose of civil disobedience is usually reform, not anarchy. In many definitions the word “civil” connotes a non-violent approach, deeming even disruptive protests of this nature resolution-oriented, like those championed by Gandhi’s do-no-harm Satyagraha (holding onto truth) campaign, or the Civil Rights Movement behind Martin Luther King Jr.
Cause & Effect
Not all direct action has technically been “peaceful”, yet could still be considered reasonable in reaction to an unreasonable system of power. Militant groups such as the Black Panthers in the mid-late 20th Century engaged in armed counter-patrols of their heavily policed streets to protect black citizens from a life-threatening regime, simultaneously enacting social reform programmes to uplift oppressed local communities. Many argue that the process must reflect the politics to truly conduct positive change, while others see the need for expedient, even extreme measures when opposing a hostile government.
Non-violent direct action (NVDA) can include strikes, sit-ins, marches, and counter establishment (underground) economics. Violent direct action may involve assault, self-harm, arson, looting, and property destruction. But in both cases, direct action is a form of activism and not politics-as-usual because it generally (but not always) violates an existing law in the attempt to bypass or subvert the establishment—meaning electoral/authoritarian politics, religious organisations or established trade unions—for their purported crime of stagnation, corruption, or entrenched injustice.
Relevance Today
Direct action springs from the ideology that without justice, there can be no peace to keep. It is becoming increasingly apparent at this time of converging crises that all issues are interconnected and intersectional, while traditional politics has proven ineffective at upholding healthy social and ecosystems – each resting upon the other.
Yet the fear of no alternative is perpetuated by those in power, while the growing state of emergency imperils the people and planet supposedly in their care.
Civil disobedience often comes about when the question looms: Is this governing body serving us, serving the good of the whole, or their own private interests? If the answer is the latter, then direct action serves as a much-needed means of course correction. When democratic societies are subject to the illegitimate authority of corporations, military states and global financial elites (sound familiar?), movements convene to restore public power.
When it’s Right to be Wrong
Democracy is at the heart of direct action; even—or, perhaps, especially—when exposing allegedly democratic governments who fail to live up to their own standard. It should be the inherent right of democratic communities to ensure their own well-being, as remote, powerful bodies cannot fairly speak for their experiences. If resources (land, water, food) are necessary for survival, they must be treated as human rights, while all people should thus be granted access and the ability to implement policies to protect these rights.
It is entirely possible to decentralise, diversify, and democratise power while also reducing and equitably distributing resources, but this sometimes requires first questioning the institutions already in place – even uprooting them entirely. Far from being disruptive, if enacted for the common good, civil disobedience can be a regenerative tool for society. Resilient communities are those that adapt to survive, accepting the need for ongoing change as an essential part of healing, of growth, and of life.
